Noise action plan

Transcription

1 Noise action plan

2

3 1 Foreword 2 2 Noise Action Plan 4 3 Public Consultation 6 4 Manchester Airport 8 5 Noise Mapping 12 6 Noise Mapping Results 14 7 Relevant Laws and Policies 22 8 Noise Controls 26 9 Departing Aircraft Arriving Aircraft Night Noise Mitigation Schemes Monitoring and Reporting on our Progress Effective Communication Noise Complaints Consultation Responses 52 Sheet No.1 Departing aircraft 54 Sheet No.2 Arriving aircraft 56 Sheet No.3 Runway use 58 Sheet No.4 Night noise 60 Sheet No.5 Mitigation schemes 62 Sheet No.6 Monitoring and reporting our progress 64 Sheet No.7 Effective communication 66 Sheet No.8 New sites for noise monitors 68 Sheet No Review consultations Conclusion 72 Appendices 1 List of organisations 78 2 List of libraries 80 3 Questionnaire 82 4 List of recipients 84 5 List of parish councils 88 6 List of respondents 89 7 Questions and answers 90

4 1. Foreword We need to review our Noise Action Plan because of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), under which member states of the European Union must produce noise maps for the main sources of environmental noise major roads, major railways, major airports and towns and cities with a population greater than 100,000 people and more than 500 people for every square kilometre (km 2 ). Member states must also produce action plans based on the results of the noise mapping. 2

5 Our noise action plan was first published in We need to revise the plan so shortly after its publication because of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) he law on managing noise, together with the framework and guidelines, are set at national and international level. However, many measures to control noise at Manchester Airport have been introduced locally. For example, many legally binding targets, obligations and limits are set by the planning conditions associated with our second runway, and also by a voluntary but legally binding agreement under S106 of the own and Country Planning Act In preparing this action plan, we have worked with our Consultative Committee, environmental health officers from the surrounding local authorities, airlines and NAS (our air traffic control service provider). We have also listened to those who responded to our consultation. In fact, many of our commitments and targets have changed as a result of their input. We are proud of how we manage noise and believe that we have an effective strategy for controlling it. his strategy pulls together over 50 policies ranging from restricting the use of the noisiest aircraft at night through to offering a sound insulation grant. Many of our policies are the strictest of any airport in the country. In this plan we show how we have performed in relation to all our commitments to managing noise. he noise action plan will continue to evolve, and our targets, polices and procedures will most likely change as we carry out reviews over the life of the plan. Any change will be aimed at limiting and reducing, where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s activities. We recognise that, for some people who live near the airport, noise is, and always will be, an important issue. We will continue to listen to and work with our neighbours, and aim to make sure that we continue to keep the number of people affected by noise to a minimum. Andrew Cowan Chief Operating Officer, Manchester Airports Group 3

6 2. Noise action plan In its 1996 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy, the European Commission identified environmental noise caused by traffic, industrial and recreational activities as one of the main local environmental problems in Europe. 4

7 he report commented that although the established environmental noise policy largely made up of laws fixing maximum sound levels for vehicles, aircraft and machines had reduced noise from individual sources, exposure to environmental noise, especially from road traffic, was not showing the same levels of improvement. Information about noise exposure is very limited, especially when compared to that collected to measure other environmental problems. hat information is also often difficult to compare because of the variety of measurement and assessment methods used. For this reason, it was proposed that a European environmental noise framework should be created. o produce the framework, all countries across the European Community would need to co-operate, and action would need to be taken at a local, national and international level. hat work would be built around three main elements: n n n standardising information (noise mapping); setting targets; and monitoring progress. his proposal resulted in Directive 2002/49/EC, which relates to the assessment and management of environmental noise. hat directive was published in June Widely referred to as the Environmental Noise Directive or END, the directive has since been adopted in this country as the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, (the regulations). Under the regulations competent authorities must produce noise maps and an associated action plan every five years. So far noise maps for the following have been produced. n n n Built-up areas (known as agglomerations). he first group of agglomerations were identified as areas which have a population of more than 250,000, have more than 500 people for every square kilometre (km 2 ) and are considered to be towns or cities. his second round review also now includes agglomerations with a population of more than 100,000 and with more than 500 people for every square kilometre (km 2 ) Major roads Major railways n Major airports those with more than 50,000 take-offs or landings each year here is more information on noise mapping on the website at In the case of this Noise Action Plan and its associated noise maps, Manchester Airport is the competent authority. We must develop and maintain a noise action plan that is designed to manage noise issues and also to protect any quiet areas, which may have been identified as a result of the noise mapping process (see page 12). his document sets out our noise action plan for Manchester Airport. Broadly, our aims are to: n n n summarise the effect of noise from aircraft landing and departing from the airport; set out measures already in place to manage noise and any measures we intend to introduce over the next five years; and show how we intend to measure and report our progress against the targets we have set ourselves. We must review and, if necessary, revise our noise action plan at least every five years and whenever there is a major development at the airport which would affect the existing noise levels. We recognise that for some people who live around the airport, noise is, and always will be, an important issue. We will continue to listen to, and work with, our neighbours. 5

8 3. Public consultation We prepared the noise action plan with help from our Consultative Committee, NAS (our air traffic control service provider), airlines and environmental health officers from surrounding boroughs. We ran a public consultation programme from 1 July until 21 October We sent printed copies of the draft action plan to over 400 people and organisations (see appendix 1) and had copies in 194 libraries (see appendix 2). We explained that our long-term objective is to limit and reduce, where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s activities. We asked people to tell us whether they think the measures we currently take to manage noise are appropriate, and to tell us whether they think that: n n n we should be taking further action to control the effect of noise in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more); we should be taking further action to control noise from aircraft taking off or landing at the airport; and the noise action plan provides a suitable framework for managing aircraft noise. We also asked people to tell us why they think further action is needed and what further action they would like us to consider, and to give us any other comments or suggestions they had on the draft noise action plan (see appendix 3). hroughout the consultation period the consultation process featured on the home page of our website, and the draft noise action plan could be downloaded from the website. Also, the plan featured in the local press. Articles and letters were published in the following newspapers. n Manchester Evening News (16 July 2009) n Knutsford Guardian (22 July 2009) n Biddulph Chronicle (23 July 2009) n Congleton Chronicle (23 July 2009) n Sandbach Chronicle (23 July 2009) n Stockport imes East (23 July 2009) n Stockport imes West (24 July 2009) n Stockport Express (9 September 2009) n Stockport imes East (10 September 2009) n Stockport Express (30 September 2009) We also sent 740 posters and 8500 leaflets to private companies, as well as to voluntary, community and faith organisations, to promote the consultation process (see appendix 4). We also advertised the consultation in our e-news and our Wythenshawe e-news publications. When we were preparing the draft plan we were aware that discussions about measuring and managing noise can involve technical issues and we tried to avoid using technical terms and jargon. During the consultation process we were asked to consider also producing a version that could gain Plain English Campaign s Crystal Mark to recognise that the document was as clear as possible given the technical nature of the document. he content of both versions was the same but the language used was different. he plain English version was published on our website. hroughout the consultation period, printed copies and copies on CD were available to anyone who asked for them. 6

9 We knew that some people would prefer to discuss the document with us in person, and we originally organised six events where members of the Environment and Community Relations teams could answer any questions that people had about the draft plan. he events were held at the following venues. hursday 16th July 2009 Bredbury St. Barnabas Parish Church 12pm 7pm hursday 23rd July 2009 Bowdon Bowdon Parish Centre 12pm 7pm uesday 11th August 2009 Knutsford Knutsford Library 11am 6pm hursday 10th September 2009 Heald Green Heald Green Methodist Church 12pm 7pm uesday 15th September 2009 Mere Mere Parish Club 12pm 7pm hursday 17th September 2009 Wythenshawe Forum Library 12pm 7pm We also received suggestions that an event should be held in Edgeley. As a result we held the following event at: In total, 268 people visited the events. We also held events to brief the parish councils from Cheshire, Warrington and rafford (see appendix 5), and we held a meeting with local councilors from Wythenshawe. As well as this, we offered to brief councillors on the draft plan. Our Environment and Community Relations teams were available throughout the consultation period and could be contacted either by , phone (directly or on a freephone number) or by letter. People could respond to the consultation document by all of these methods or through a form on our website. As requested by Defra, this review of the noise action plan has been carried out with our Airport Consultative Committee and our Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group Monday 5 October 2009 Edgeley Edgeley Library 2pm 7pm 7

10 4. Manchester Airport Manchester Airport is the third busiest airport in the UK and the largest outside the South East. 8

11 SOCKPOR GALEY CHEADLE LYMM BOWDON ALRINCHAM WYHENSHAWE HALE HEALD GREEN HALE BARNS CHEADLE HULME BRAMHALL SYAL MERE WILMSLOW MOBBERLEY KNUSFORD ALDERLEY EDGE PRESBURY he airport has three passenger terminals, a cargo centre and aircraft maintenance area. It is one of only two airports in the country to have two full-length runways. Flights run to and from Manchester Airport 24 hours a day. he airport is approximately 10 miles south-west of Manchester city centre and covers an area of 625 hectares. It is surrounded by suburban housing to the east. he districts of Wythenshawe, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Gatley are the closest. o the west of the airport there is mainly lightly-populated countryside, characterised by farming, with small populations. he villages of Mobberley and Ashley, and the town of Knutsford, have the largest populations in the area. o the south lies the village of Styal and the Quarry Bank Mill and Styal Estate (owned by the National rust). he site is a popular recreational and educational resource, receiving over a million visitors each year. he M56 motorway skirts the airport boundary, with Hale and Hale Barns to the north. o the south are the towns of Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. In 2012, the airport handled almost 20 million passengers travelling on around 169,000 flights. he airport is developing as a significant part of the UK s transport network. It is an important destination on the national rail network, as well as being a major destination for a range of bus and long-distance coach services. A transport interchange known as he Station opened in Based around the former rail station, it is where bus, coach and rail services come together in a high-quality facility located between the three passenger terminals. he Station is currently being expanded to include a forth platform and will be linked to Manchester's Metrolink light rail network in he airport has always benefited from quick and convenient access by road, due to its central location and the direct link to the M56 and the rest of the national motorway network. In the 2003 White Paper, he Future of Air ransport, the Government recognised the potential for the growth of the airport to generate significant benefits for the economy of the North of England. However, the White Paper went on to say that stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise would need to apply to the growth of the airport. 9

12 he Department for ransport made detailed forecasts of the future growth in air traffic at Manchester. In principle, the Government supports the growth of the airport to make maximum use of the two runways. his is estimated to be 50 million passengers a year, and depends on us meeting environmental concerns. It is widely recognised that the growth of the airport brings huge benefits to the North West. But these benefits need to be delivered in a way that reflects our commitment to sustainable development. We recognise that it is essential that we focus on environmental issues to avoid restricting the social and economic benefits that the growth of the airport brings. In our Master Plan to 2030 we committed to a policy of encouraging the use of the quietest types of aircraft and placing restrictions on using the noisier types. he supporting Environment and Community Plans set out our approach to managing aircraft noise and tackling its effect on the local community. Our aim is to limit and reduce where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s operation and development. We are committed to reducing the number of people affected by aircraft noise by routinely reviewing our noise-related targets and policies. We will also continue to support local communities affected by our work by further developing our community-relations programme and improvements to our mitigation schemes (see part 12 on page 42). We will continue to measure our performance against other airports and to contribute to the sustainable development of the air transport industry at a national, regional and local level. We will also support and contribute to the noise-related commitments contained within the UK Sustainable Aviation Strategy. You can see more about our Master Plan and Environment and Community Plans on the Manchester Airport website at manchesterairport.co.uk. he Manchester agglomeration he Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, use the term agglomeration to refer to built-up areas that have a large population and are considered to be towns and cities. he Manchester agglomeration stretches from Rochdale in the north east to Altrincham and Alderley Edge in the south. Manchester Airport sits close to the south-west tip of the agglomeration. Our aim is to limit and reduce where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s operation and development. We are committed to keeping the number of people affected by aircraft noise to a minimum by routinely reviewing our noise-related targets and policies. 10

13 Manchester - first round Agglomeration he map below shows the area identified as the agglomeration. 11

14 5. Noise mapping What are noise maps? In the same way as geographical maps use contours to distinguish between high ground and low ground, noise maps use contours to identify those areas that are relatively louder or quieter. Although noise maps can be used to provide information on noise levels and the number of people affected, their main purpose is to help authorities produce noise action plans designed to manage noise and reduce noise levels where appropriate. How were the maps made? Our noise maps have been produced by the Civil Aviation Authority, who maintains the UK s civil aircraft noise model known as ANCON. ANCON takes account of things such as the number and types of aircraft departing and landing, where the aircraft are flying, and the time of day or night, to estimate the noise on the ground around an airport. Are the noise maps different from the noise contour mapping seen previously? If you compare the noise maps with the noise contour maps previously produced for us or other UK airports, you may notice some significant differences. he noise maps in this document have been prepared specifically to help us produce our noise action plan. Noise contour maps are produced using aircraft movements for an average summer s day (mid-june to mid-september), and it has been custom to produce separate maps for only the 16-hour day (7am to 11pm) and eight-hour night (11pm to 7am). he contours are presented in terms of the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq). he A-weighting is designed to represent the human ear s response to sound. Under the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, noise mapping is carried out every five years for an average day (January to December) for each of the following periods. n Lday the level in the day, 7am to 7pm n Levening the level in the evening, 7pm to 11pm n Lnight the level at night, 11pm to 7am n Lden the level over 24 hours he Lden figures are produced by combining those for Lday, Levening and Lnight. o take account of the fact that noise is considered to be more disturbing at certain times of the day, before the Lday, Levening and Lnight values are combined to produce the Lden level, a weighting of 5dB is added to the evening values and 10dB is added to the night values. 12

15 As a result of these differences, the two sets of contours are not directly comparable. We recognise that people respond differently to noise, and this makes it difficult to quantify the relationship between noise and annoyance. However, for the purposes of this noise action plan, aircraft noise is considered to be affecting the first round agglomeration if the noise mapping has indicated an Lden value of 55dB or more or an Lnight value of 50dB or more. As a first priority, we should consider any further measures which we could take in areas which noise maps show have homes exposed to more than 69dB LAeq from 7am to 11pm. Quiet areas One of the priorities for authorities drawing up noise action plans is to protect identified quiet areas within agglomerations against an increase in noise. We expected the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to identify quiet areas before we produced our action plan. However, Defra has decided on a new approach where authorities identify quiet areas themselves when they are developing noise action plans for particular agglomerations. his more flexible approach will help us to make sure that we put appropriate local policies into place to protect the identified quiet areas against an increase in noise. 13

16 6. Noise mapping results Areas falling within the 2011 noise maps, which the Civil Aviation Authority produced to help us prepare this noise action plan, are summarised here.

17 Lden contours he outermost Lden value identified is the 55 Lden contour. he 55 Lden contour extends over 15 kilometres to the north east of the airport, beyond Stockport, as far as the Hyde and Denton area. o the south west, the contour extends approximately six kilometres from the airport and includes north and central Knutsford and the village of Mobberley. o the south, the northerly edge of Styal village is included. he 60 Lden contour extends as far as central Stockport to the north east, and takes in parts of Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and south Wythenshawe. o the south and west of the airport, the contour takes in the Shaw Heath area in Knutsford and parts of west Mobberley. he 65 Lden contour extends into areas of south Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Heald Green at its north eastern tip. o the south west, the contour includes mainly rural areas to the north of Mobberley village and south of Mobberley railway station. Other than to the north east of the airport, where it extends as far as the more northerly parts of Heald Green, the 70 Lden contour largely follows the boundary of the operational areas of the airport. he innermost 75 Lden contour remains entirely within the perimeter of the airfield. Lnight contours Of the Lnight contours, the outermost 50dB contour extends as far as the Shaw Heath area of Knutsford to the west. o the east, the contour extends as far as central Stockport. he 55 Lnight contour reaches as far as Cheadle Hulme to the east and to the west, it takes in the mainly rural areas north of Mobberley village. Much of the length of the 60 Lnight contour follows the boundary of the operational area of the airport, but stretches out as far as Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme border to the east. he 65 Lnight and 70 Lnight contours remain almost entirely within the airport boundary, just crossing into the Moss Nook area. We have sent our noise maps to Defra, who have estimated the population and number of homes exposed to noise above the various levels. Defra have rounded the number of homes to the nearest 50, except when there are fewer than 50, in which case the total has been shown as Fewer than 50. Defra have rounded the number of people to the nearest 100, except when the population is less than 100, in which case the total number of people has been shown as Fewer than 100. Defra worked out the number of homes and the associated population using Ordnance Survey MasterMap Address Layer and information from the 2011 Census, taking account of buildings that contain more than one home, such as apartment blocks. 24 hours Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels Lden. Area of Number Number Noise level (db) contour (km 2 ) of homes of people 55 or more or more or more or more 3.2 Fewer than 50 Fewer than or more Daytime (7am to 7pm) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels Lday. Area of Number Number Noise level (db) contour (km 2 ) of homes of people 54 or more or more or more or more or more or more 3.0 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100 Evening (7pm to 11pm) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels Levening. Area of Number Number Noise level (db) contour (km 2 ) of homes of people 54 or more or more or more or more or more or more 2.0 Fewer than 50 Fewer than

18 !!!! N Noise contour (db) W E Noise level contours reproduced from strategic noise maps. 24 hours Lden contours First round agglomeration S km Crown Copyright All rights reserved Defra !

19 !!!!! N Noise contour (db) W E Noise level contours reproduced from strategic noise maps. Daytime (7am to 7pm) Lday contours First round agglomeration S km Crown Copyright All rights reserved Defra !

20 N Noise contour (db) W E Noise level contours reproduced from strategic noise maps. Evening (7pm to 11pm) Levening contours First round agglomeration S km Crown Copyright All rights reserved Defra ! !!!!!

21 Our policy continues to be to encourage the use of the quieter types of aircraft and limit the number of noisier aircraft. Night-time (11pm to 7am) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels Lnight. Area of Number Number Noise level (db) contour (km 2 ) of homes of people 48 or more or more or more or more or more or more 2.3 Fewer than 50 Fewer than or more hourLAeq (7am to 11pm) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels LAeq, 16-hour. Area of Number Number Noise level (db) contour (km 2 ) of homes of people 54 or more or more or more or more or more or more 2.8 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100 he Environmental Noise Directive also emphasises the need to protect non-residential buildings that could be affected by noise (noise-sensitive buildings), such as schools and hospitals. We have identified the number of other noise-sensitive premises that lie within the various contours, including hospitals and schools. Estimated total number of non-residential noise-sensitive buildings above various noise levels LAeq, 16-hour. Noise level (db) 55 or more or more 7 Number of buildings 65 or more 2 70 or more 0 19

22 !!!!!! N Noise contour (db) W E Noise level contours reproduced from strategic noise maps. Night-time (11pm to 7am) Lnight contours First round agglomeration S km Crown Copyright All rights reserved Defra !

23 !!!!! N Noise contour (db) W E Noise level contours reproduced from strategic noise maps. 16-hour (7am to 11pm) LAeq contours First round agglomeration S km Crown Copyright All rights reserved Defra !

24 7. Relevant laws and policies he laws and policies that relate to controlling aircraft noise comes from international agreements, the European Union, national laws and local agreement. 22

25 Downward trend in the noise certification of aircraft Difference in noise levels compared to chapter 3 standard (decibels) DC9-10 B B MD-80 B B B A Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter International ICAO regulatory framework he International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is the United Nation s body that oversees the worldwide civil aviation industry. he ICAO s regulatory framework aims to strike a balance between the need to reduce aircraft noise around airports and the needs of airlines and aircraft manufacturers. his is called the balanced approach. he main elements of the balanced approach were incorporated into UK law as part of the Aerodrome (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations hose main elements include the following. n Reducing noise at source Developing quieter aircraft. his is achieved worldwide through there being increasingly strict ICAO noise standards for new aircraft. n Land-use planning Controlling how land can be used and managed to discourage or prevent inappropriate developments around airports. n Operational procedures Procedures designed to reduce the noise nuisance associated with aircraft. n Operating restrictions Measures that limit aircraft access to airports (for example, night restrictions or gradually withdrawing the noisier types of aircraft). At present the framework applies to all city airports and other civil airports with more than 50,000 take-offs or landings a year. he ICAO puts aircraft in categories known as chapter. he chapter an aircraft is in is based on noise measurements taken at the time of its noise certification, taking account of its size and number of engines. he chapters provide an effective and consistent way of controlling noise, with the most recent (and strict) chapter 4 standard applying to aircraft certified after Many chapter 3 aircraft currently in use already meet the chapter 4 standard. However, restrictions are now being placed on the use of noisier chapter 3 aircraft, which have become known as marginally compliant chapter 3. A new chapter 14 noise standard, to be applied to aircraft types,entering service after 2017 was agreed in Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) he Environmental Noise Directive has two main aims. Firstly, to define a common approach to avoiding, preventing or reducing the harmful effects, including annoyance, of being exposed to environmental noise. Member states must do the following. n Carry out noise mapping to determine people s exposure to environmental noise. n Make sure that information on environmental noise and its effects are made available to the public. n Adopt action plans, based on the results of noise mapping, with a view to: n n preventing and reducing environmental noise, particularly where noise levels can have harmful effects on human health; and maintaining the level of environmental noise where it is good. Secondly, to provide a basis for developing community measures to reduce noise from major sources, particularly road and rail vehicles and networks, aircraft, outdoor equipment, industry, and mobile machinery. 23

26 National he Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended In October 2006, the Environmental Noise Directive was put into practice in England through he Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended. he regulations state that for the purpose of producing noise maps at non-designated airports (including Manchester), the airport operator is considered to be the competent authority. Noise maps for Manchester Airport have been produced and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs adopted these in hey can be found on the website at Under the regulations, we must produce a noise action plan. he Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, say that the action plan must: n be drawn up for places near the airport that fall within the 55 db(a) Lden contour or the 50 db(a) Lnight contour on noise maps; n be designed to manage noise levels and effects, including reducing noise if necessary; and n aim to protect quiet areas in agglomerations against an increase in noise. he Civil Aviation Act 2006 Under this act, each airport authority can establish a noise control scheme which may limit the numbers or types of aircraft that can be used in any given period. It also gives airport authorities the power to introduce charges and penalties designed to encourage the use of quieter or less-polluting aircraft. he Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003 hese regulations were taken from EC Directive 2002/30/EC. he regulations introduced the balanced approach to managing aircraft noise. he Aviation Policy Framework As part of its long-term plan for the future of the aviation industry, the UK Government s overall policy on noise is to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. Some of the measures are as follows. n Promoting research into and development of new low-noise technologies. n Recognising the balanced approach (the regulatory framework for controlling noise, as agreed by ICAO in 2001). n Confirming that, apart from the designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted), appropriate noise controls should be agreed locally. n Airports should consider using differential landing charges to incentivise quieter aircraft. Future Airspace Strategy for the United Kingdom 2011 to 2030 (FAS) In 2011, the Civil Aviation Authority published its view of how UK airspace should be modernised to further improve safety and efficiency. he FAS vision is to establish: Safe, efficient airspace, that has the capacity to meet reasonable demand, balances the needs of all users and mitigates the impact of aviation on the environment. heir strategy has three main drivers: safety, capacity and environment. National Planning Policy Framework he National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government s planning policies for England and how it expects those policies to be applied by local authorities he framework says that when considering planning applications for developments that could be affected by noise and those which could generate noise, authorities should aim to do the following: n Prevent noise arising as a result of new developments from having a major negative effect on people s health and quality of; n Keep other negative effects which noise from new developments has on people s health and quality of life to a minimum; n Recognise that developments will often create some noise and a business, in order to grow, should not have unreasonable restrictions placed upon it because of changes in land use that have arisen since their business was established; n Identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. he Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) he NPSE sets out the long-term vision of the Government s noise policy. Noise policy s vision promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. Noise policy s aims n hrough the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development: n Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life; n Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; n Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life 24

27 Sustainable Aviation Launched in 2005, Sustainable Aviation is a long-term strategy for the UK aviation industry. It brings together airlines, airports, manufacturers and air-traffic service providers. Its main aim is to make sure the industry can perform well over the long term. It sets out a number of targets to reduce the environmental effects of UK aviation and makes a commitment to report progress. We have signed up to the strategy and will continue to play our part in achieving its commitments, particularly those about controlling aircraft noise. In 2013, Sustainable Aviation launched its Noise Road-Map. he Road-Map has been conceived around the four elements of the ICAO s balanced approach, adding communication and community engagement to the key priniciples of: n Reducing noise at source n Planning and managing land use n Operational procedures for reducing noise n Operating restrictions he Road-Map looks at how the aviation industry can manage aircraft noise between now and It also acts as a toolkit for airports to introduce measures to reduce the effect of noise impact from aircraft operations. Local Airport Master Plan After publishing its national policy for aviation in he 2003 Air ransport White Paper, the Government required airport operators to produce master plans which set out their approach to developing the airport. Planning authorities will take master plans into account when preparing regional and local policies and making planning decisions. Our 2007 master plan is supported by four detailed action plans covering community, ground transport, land use and environment. In our 2007 Environment Plan, we set out a clear framework designed to guide our environmental policy and management up to In it we identify the main environmental issues likely to influence the development of the airport and set short-, medium- and long-term targets and actions that form a part of our environmental programme. he 2013 Aviation Policy Framework repeats the requirement for master plans, their scope and how they are applied. We are currently reviewing our master plan in preparation for a consultation in early Northern erminal Control Area NCA) A product of the Future Airspace Strategy, the NCA project will modernise and simplify airspace across the north of England providing significant environmental, safety and service improvements. By simplifying structures and procedures that have evolved over many years, this process has the potential to greatly improve the noise performance of aircraft operations. For instance, it is often the complexity of airspace use that reduces the ability to fly continuous descents and continuous climbs. Planning policy We work closely with local planning authorities when they are preparing their local development plans. his supports the balanced approach and helps to make sure that local planning policies in line with national guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Such policies are included in the Manchester Core Strategy 2012, the Stockport Core Strategy 2011, and the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan he local authorities are currently preparing local development frameworks and we will work with them to make sure similar planning policies are included in those frameworks so that the requirements in Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24) continue to be met. Planning conditions As a result of us getting planning permission for a second runway, a number of planning conditions were set. hese included strengthening some of the existing noise controls as well as introducing independent auditing and annual reporting. We have also entered into a legal agreement (under S106 of the own and Country Planning Act 1990) that includes extra noise controls and reporting obligations. Each year we prepare a report, for Manchester City Council and Cheshire East Council, on our performance in meeting the planning conditions. We also prepare an annual S106 report for Cheshire East Council. Planning applications he noise contours prepared each year are given to local planning authorities to help them consider planning applications for developments. We monitor applications for developments in areas close to the airport and give the relevant local authority information on noise issues and sound insulation where appropriate. Airport Consultative Committee he Manchester Airport Consultative Committee is made up of 33 members representing local authorities, community groups and user groups. It meets every three months to consider progress reports on current community issues, including results of environmental monitoring, analysis of community complaints, development proposals, environmental management initiatives and traffic statistics. he Committee has two sub-groups. n he Airport Users Advisory Group is responsible for providing advice on matters involving running the terminal, passenger comfort and the facilities and services offered to passengers. n he echnical Advisory Group concentrates on looking at ground transport, environmental controls and policy, airline performance and work on the airfield. 25

28 8. Noise controls When setting out its aim to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise, the Government stated that a number of measures would be needed to achieve what was recognised as a challenging objective. he partnership between Manchester Airport, the Airlines and National Air raffic Services to improve aircraft environmental performance is now a European model. Manchester Airport s long-standing relationship with the local community in developing its environmental mitigation efforts is also widely emulated now. I like to think of this inclusive and holistic approach as the Manchester way. Alan Melrose Eurocontrol 26

29 he measures the Government identified included: n promoting research into and developing new low-noise technologies; n introducing the ICAO regulatory framework or balanced approach ; n putting the Environmental Noise Directive into force; n keeping the current regulations on noise at the three London airports, and considering applying these to other airports where local controls are not being effective; and n supporting the increased use of financial incentives and penalties at airports where there is still a significant noise issue. At Manchester Airport we have a track record of developing policies and taking action to reduce our effect on the environment. Our long-term aim relating to noise is to limit and reduce where possible the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s operation and development. We believe that we need to continue to work closely with our airlines and our air traffic service provider (NAS) so that we can effectively influence behaviour and provide real and lasting benefit. For example, Eurocontrol's draft specification for CEM implementation has highlighted the work of our Collaborative Environmental group, which has been running for almost 4 years, as a good model. In developing our environmental objectives we have made sure we have adopted a balanced approach, as required by the ICAO regulatory framework. We last consulted on our Environmental Objectives in 2009, when we were preparing our noise action plan. We have taken into consideration the Government s position as stated in the Air ransport White Paper that growth in capacity at Manchester must be accompanied by every effort to secure the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and to minimise the number of people potentially affected and that the airport should be subject to stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise, with the objective of incentivising airlines to introduce the quietest suitable aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable. he Government recognises that a fair balance has to be struck between local disturbance, the limits of social acceptability and the economic benefit. Our current noise controls include over 50 measures designed to reduce the effect that aircraft noise has on surrounding communities. Many of our noise-control measures are judged against limits which are fixed by either the planning conditions set for the second runway or in the S106 Agreement of the own and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared against performance in We will continue to compare performance against a rolling average of the previous five years results. So, as improvements are made, the resulting target for the following year will become more challenging. Using a five-year rolling average allows any unusual results in a particular year to be evened out. We will produce an annual performance report and publish it on our website. We believe that our noise controls are working to meet the Government s aim to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. Our performance against individual targets is set out in the following pages. But another way of deciding whether we are meeting the Government s aim is to look at the number of people who live within the noise contour areas. For example, in 2005 there were 32,550 people living within the 57 LAeq noise contour (average summer 24-hour period). By 2012 this number had fallen to 22,700 because the area of the 57 LAeq noise contour had reduced. In future we will also report our performance against the new Lden measurements. Number of people who live within the 57 LAeq noise contour (average summer 24-hour period) Number of people (thousands) Our environmental objectives are to: n make sure that aircraft noise does not go above the levels recorded during 2001/2002 (the year the second runway opened); n encourage the use of quieter aircraft; and n meet any noise-reduction objectives that are introduced from time to time. 27

30 9. Departing aircraft Although improved engine design has dramatically reduced the level of noise generated by aircraft immediately after take-off, noise on departure can still be a major source of disturbance to our neighbouring communities. 28

31 W N S E Lymm Mere Altrincham Cheadle Knutsford Mobberley Wilmslow Cheadle Hulme Stockport Bramhall Alderley Edge Macclesfield Like many other airports, to control aircraft noise on departure we operate a system of what are known as preferred noise routes (PNRs). Reflecting current UK Government policy, our PNRs are designed to concentrate departing aircraft along the lowest possible number of departure routes, and away from more densely populated areas, whenever this is possible. his reduces the number of people aircraft are flying over. he number of flights following our PNRs has become a very important performance indicator for us. We routinely report performance against this indicator to airlines, air traffic control and our Consultative Committee. hrough working with our airlines and air traffic controllers, over a number of years we have increased the number of flights following PNRs. In 2012 just 3% of departures left our PNRs (that is, flew off track ). On track departures By 2015 we will carry out formal trials to identify the potential benefits of P-RNAV departure procedures and the benefits they can deliver. We will also consider other restrictions currently on the use of PNR's to see if changes could bring significant noise benefits to local communities. We will not make any changes without consulting the public through the Airport Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group. NAP1: off-track departures We have an annual limit of no more than 5% off-track departures. In future, we will continue to compare the percentage of off-track departures against the average performance over the previous five years. 99% 97% 95% 93% 91% 89% 87% We have a system of financial penalties for flights where airlines persistently fail to keep on the PNRs. We introduced those penalties after the Civil Aviation Act 2006 was published. We are pleased to be able to report that, to date, we have not had to charge any penalties. If we do have to charge any penalties in the future, we will donate the proceeds to the Manchester Airport Community rust Fund (see NAP38). NAP2: off track surcharge Any airline that persistently fails to keep to the PNRs will have to pay a surcharge. he surcharges are as follows: During the day per failure During the night per failure We intend to improve the ways in which we present information on our performance and make it available. Also, as part of the upgrade of the noise monitoring system we will introduce a tool to allow flight paths to be looked at over the internet. Preferred noise routes Off-track departures 85% KEY: arget Limit 29

32 Non-standard departures 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0 Sometimes, for instance as a result of bad weather, air traffic control may cancel the need for an aircraft to follow a PNR. Such a departure is described as being non-standard. We understand that because non-standard departures can result in aircraft flying over more densely populated areas, they can be particularly disturbing. For this reason we keep the number of this type of departure to a minimum. NAP3: non-standard departures We have an annual limit of no more than 5% non-standard departures. he number of non-standard departures will also be compared against the average of the totals for the previous five years Departing aircraft normally take off into the wind. However, if there are clear benefits to departing in a particular direction, a limited amount of wind from behind may be acceptable. By specifying our preferred runway direction as westerly (that is, aircraft approaching to land from the east and taking off to the west) we can further reduce the number of departing aircraft flying over more densely populated areas to the north and east of the airport. Limit In consultation with the airport s Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group, we will continue to routinely review our runway usage to identify possible opportunities for using just one runway. Following the most recent review, runway 2 will be closed between 10.30am and 4pm, and from 8pm to 6.30am, Monday to Friday. At weekends, as well as closing runway 2 at night, we will also close it between 10.30am on Saturday and 4pm on Sunday. he Airport will do its best to keep the use of both runways at the same time to a minimum. NAP5: using only one runway Each year we will review opportunities to use just runway 1, within operational and safety requirements. Noise surcharge day (Number of surcharges) he level of noise generated by each aircraft as it departs is measured at a number of fixed points around the airport. Beneath each PNR, noise monitors are positioned at a standard distance after take-off. he levels recorded at these points are used to set our noise performance indicators and policies. o encourage departing aircraft to be flown in the quietest possible way, for flights that generate noise levels above published limits we issue the airline with a financial penalty known as a noise surcharge. he level of the noise surcharge depends on the level of the noise. he maximum level of noise a departing aircraft is allowed to make depends on the time of day the night-time limits are lower because we recognise that noise can bother people more at night. We will donate any surcharges to the Manchester Airport Community rust Fund (see NAP38). We will review our noise surcharge every year, in consultation with he echnical Advisory Group and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group NAP6: departure noise surcharge he penalty for going over the daytime maximum noise level of 90dB(A) is currently 750 plus 150 for each decibel above that level. NAP4: preferred runway direction Where conditions allow, we prefer aircraft to take off in a westerly direction Preferred runway direction 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Departure noise levels, recorded over a full summer or winter season, are ranked in descending order. An average of the 10% noisiest or 100 noisiest are used as an extra performance indicator, to support the more customary noise contours. We are committed to making sure that these levels stay lower than those recorded in KEY: arget Limit

33 NAP7: 24-hour noisiest 10% he average level of noise of the 10% noisiest departures will remain lower than that in 2001, and will also be compared against the average level over the previous five years. In 2007, there were 1855 flights using marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft. his compares with 3052 in By 2012 the total number of flights by marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft was 20 NAP9: marginally compliant chapter 3 and chapter 4 24 hour noisiest 10% (db(a)) Limit We will make sure that the number of flights by marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft remains no greater than that in Starting in 2014, we will report the number of flights by chapter 4 aircraft. In the Aviation Policy Framework, the Government has encouraged the use of landing charges, as one of a range of options for reducing noise and has asked the CAA to investigate the use of these charges NAP8: daytime noisiest 100 he average level of noise for the 100 noisiest departures between 7am and 11pm will remain lower than that in 2001, and will also be compared against the average level over the previous five years. We already have a system of runway charges, which offer airlines incentives to use the quietest types of aircraft at certain times of day. However, the mix of aircraft operating at any airport is constantly changing. For this reason we must continue to develop our charging systems so they respond to that change and continue to encourage the use of the quieter types of aircraft rather than older, noisier aircraft. Daytime noisiest 100 (db(a)) summer Limit Number of flights by marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft (100s) Limit Daytime noisiest 100 (db(a)) winter Limit he use of relatively small numbers of noisier types of aircraft can have a significant effect on our performance indicators for noise. Often, it is these aircraft which also cause the most disturbance for our local communities. In our 2007 Environment Plan we made an ongoing commitment to keep the number of flights of noisier aircraft (known as marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft ) lower than in NAP10: noise-related runway charge Guided by the CAA's report, we will consider introducing noise-related charges In looking to the future, the potentially conflicting requirements relating to noise, local air quality and climate change make the approach adopted by the Sustainable Aviation initiative all the more relevant. We will continue to play an active part in that group s work, Locally, through the Collaborative Environmental Management process, we will continue to work to identify and introduce more efficient departure procedures including the possibility of using precision departure procedures (P-RNAV) and continuous climb departures (CCD). NAP11: departures code of practice We will look at the best practice guidance contained in the Sustainable Aviation Departures Code of Practice and examine how this might be rolled-out at Manchester. We will report our performance in achieving this. KEY: arget Limit 31

34 10. Arriving aircraft Historically, noise from aircraft landing has not been as big a problem to local communities as the noise from aircraft taking off. However, the improved technologies that have significantly reduced noise levels on departure have delivered relatively small benefits to the level of noise when an aircraft approaches touchdown, making it an area of growing concern. Unlike take-off, where the bulk of the noise is produced by the engines, when an aircraft is on approach, engine noise and airframe contribute equally to the noise level. Airframe noise comes mainly from the aircraft s undercarriage and wings and is proportionate to the aircraft s speed as it passes through the air. Low-power/low-drag is a technique designed to keep airframe noise on approach to a minimum by making sure that the landing flaps are extended and the aircraft s undercarriage is lowered as late as possible. his reduces drag and means that less engine power is needed to compensate for that drag. As a result, noise is considerably reduced, both in terms of level and time. All aircraft approaching Manchester Airport are expected to use lowpower/low-drag procedures. hrough the Collaborative Environmental Management process, we will try to identify opportunities for reducing noise by specifying the best point at which the aircraft's landing flaps should be used and the undercarriage lowered. We will also consider having improved navigational performance (P-RNAV) used on arrivals, with the intention of introducing the procedure if it would lead to noise benefits. By 2015 we will undertake formal trials to identify the potential benefits of P- RNAV arrivals procedures and the performance benefits they can deliver. NAP12: low-power/low-drag Aircraft approaching the airport are expected to keep noise disturbance to a minimum by using a low-power/lowdrag procedure. Noise sources railing edge flaps Undercarriage, doors and wheelbays Leading edge slats and flaps Nacelles and intake air spillage 32

35 Concept description of continuous descent approach Lower power settings from higher altitude. No level-off segment. Continuous descent approach Conventional approach Continuous descent approach (CDA) is a technique designed to further reduce noise levels from landing aircraft. ypically, aircraft land by reducing their altitude in a series of steps towards an airport. For each of these steps there needs to be a noisy burst of engine thrust to level out the aircraft after it has moved to a lower level. With CDA, air traffic controllers give pilots accurate information on the distance to touchdown so they can work out the best possible continuous rate of descent. his means that the aircraft stays as high as possible for longer and reduces the need for periods of engine thrust to keep the aircraft level. NAP13: continuous descent approach All aircraft approaching the airport between 10pm and 6am are expected to use continuous descent procedures. In line with commitments made in the Sustainable Aviation Noise Road Map, we will work with our service partners to improve CDA at Manchester. Unlike take-off, where the bulk of the noise is produced by the engines, when an aircraft is on approach, engine noise and airframe contribute equally. 33

36 As at most major airports, aircraft making their final approach into Manchester are guided by an instrument landing system (ILS). he ILS gives precise information about the position of the aircraft in relation to the runway. Using ILS means that aircraft follow a very narrow approach path at an angle of 3. We will continue to work with our Sustainable Aviation partners to evaluate the possible introduction of steeper approaches at UK airports including Manchester. o reduce noise disturbance from aircraft using the ILS, aircraft must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path. NAP14 ILS approach Aircraft using the instrument landing system must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path. he instrument landing system ILS localiser aerial Glide path Vertical radio beacons ILS glide path aerial Extended runway centre line (ground level) 34

37 If a pilot chooses to approach the airfield without help from ILS or radar (that is, to make a visual approach ), the aircraft must follow a descent path which will not result in it being lower than the approach path it would have followed using the ILS glide path. NAP15: visual approaches When aircraft are approaching to land from the east, jet aircraft must not join the final approach at a height of less than 1500 feet. Similarly, propeller aircraft whose maximum take-off weight is more than 5700 kg must not join the final approach at a distance of less than three nautical miles from the landing point or at a height of less than 1000 feet. One of the ways to slow an aircraft down immediately after landing is by using reverse thrust. his is where the thrust from the engines is directed forwards to produce a braking action. Although the brakes of modern aircraft are far more efficient than they once were, reverse thrust may still be needed and can cause a noise disturbance to communities close to the airfield. o try to keep the disturbance to a minimum, we discourage the use of reverse thrust, particularly at night. NAP16: reverse thrust braking o keep noise disturbance to a minimum in areas next to the airport, pilots should avoid using reverse thrust after landing. Aircraft engines can produce huge amounts of thrust. hrust is used to fly the aircraft in the air and to taxi the aircraft when it is on the ground. With all of an aircraft s engines running, even at very low power settings, the thrust produced is often more than enough to move the aircraft along the ground. Because of this surplus of power, in the right conditions an engine can be turned off while the aircraft is taxiing to and from the runway. Some airlines already do this at Manchester, and this has benefits both to local noise and air quality. hrough our work with our Sustainable Aviation partners and through our own Collaborative Environmental Management group, we will try to develop best practice for reduced-engine taxiing (that is, turning an engine off when taxiing). NAP17: reduced-engine taxiing By 2014 we will develop a framework for more consistent use of reduced-engine taxiing. For a period of time immediately before take-off and shortly after landing, an aircraft may still need electrical power to maintain onboard systems and provide ventilation to the cabin. o maintain that power while the main engines are turned off, most modern jet aircraft are fitted with an auxiliary power unit (APU). he APU is a small engine. Like all engines, an APU can be noisy, affect air quality and contribute to climate change. An alternative to using APUs is to use fixed electrical ground power points (FEGPs). FEGPs provide mains electricity to power an aircraft s systems and are available on most of our aircraft stands. We are gradually upgrading our FEGPs to make sure they are compatible with the latest types of aircraft. Where we have completed this work, we intend to restrict the use of auxiliary power units. NAP18: APU use By 2015 we will introduce restrictions on the non-essential use of auxiliary power units. Aircraft using the instrument landing system must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path. 35

38 11. Night noise Night-time noise is often the most disturbing. So it is important that our controls for night noise clearly demonstrate a balance between the economic and social benefits that the airport brings and a person s right to get a good night s sleep. Our 2012 night noise policy states that aircraft noise at night will not go above the levels we recorded in

39 We will review our night noise policy every five years to make sure it continues to be relevant. We last consulted you on night noise in 2011, when we cut the size of our QC point noise budget and tightened our night noise surcharges. NAP19: night noise policy We will review our night noise policy every five years to make sure it continues to be relevant. he next review will take place in At this time we will examine the length of the night period, limits on seasonal movements, QC points budgets (see page 38) and working restrictions. Our 2012 night noise policy states that aircraft noise at night will not go above the levels we recorded in NAP20: night-time noise contour area he area of the night-time 60 LAeq noise contour will be compared against an average of the previous five years results. NAP21: night period noisiest 100 he average level of noise of the noisiest 100 departures between 11pm and 7am will be compared against an average of the previous five years results. Night period noisiest 100 (db(a)) summer Limit 8 Limit Night-time noise contour area (km 2 ) Night period noisiest 100 (db(a)) winter Limit LAeq represents the average sound level over a given period of time, in this case the eight hours between 11pm and 7am. Often it can be a relatively small number of noisy aircraft which cause the most disturbance. So, we will also make sure that the average sound level of the 100 noisiest night-time departures remains below the level in NAP22: night-time noisiest 100 he average level of noise of the noisiest 100 departures between 11.30pm and 6am will be compared against an average of the previous five years results. 86 Limit Night-time noisiest 100 (db(a)) KEY: arget Limit

40 We will also make sure that the surcharge we apply on aircraft going above our maximum night-time noise levels continues to be set at a lower noise level than that during the day. We will donate all money from these surcharges to the Manchester Airport Community rust Fund (see NAP38). NAP23: night noise surcharge he noise level at which we apply a surcharge will continue to be lower during the night period (11pm to 7am). As part of the most recent review of our night noise policy we introduced the concept of core night period (11.30pm to 6am) and shoulder night period (11pm to 11.30pm and 6am to 7am). An essential part of our night-period noise controls is a system of classifying aircraft according to their quota count. he system gives each aircraft a quota count depending on the noise they generate on take-off and when landing (based on the noise levels measured at the time that aircraft was first introduced). here are seven categories of quota count and these double with each increase of three decibels. Aircraft are given a quota count (QC) as follows. he limit we set on the total number of QC points for all aircraft taking off or landing between 11.30pm and 6am depends on the season. In principle, for any season the total number of QC points allowed (the noise budget) could be used for a small number of noisy aircraft or a larger number of quieter aircraft. Our night noise policy has fixed the QC limit until the end of the 2017 summer season. NAP24: Seasonal QC point noise budget Summer Winter 7000 points 3000 points he penalty for going over the core night period's noise level of 81dB(A) is 750 plus 150 for each decibel above that level. he penalty for going over the shoulder night-period's noise level of 82dB(A) is 750 plus 150 for each decibel above that level. QC points used (1000s) summer Limit QC points used (1000s) winter Limit Departure noise surcharge night (Number of surcharges) We have also placed restrictions on the use of aircraft with higher quota counts. Aircraft with quota counts of QC 8 or QC 16 are not allowed to land or take off between 11pm and 7am. Also, aircraft that have a quota count of QC 4 when taking off may not be scheduled to depart between 11.30pm and 6am. However, there are a number of exceptions where QC 8 and QC 16 aircraft can be used, and where departures of aircraft with a quota count of QC 4 can be scheduled hese exceptions are as follows. n Non-scheduled movements during emergency situations Certified noise level Quota (decibels) count More than QC16 99 to QC8 96 to 98.9 QC4 93 to 95.9 QC2 90 to 92.9 QC1 87 to 89.9 QC to 86.9 QC0.25 Less than 84 None n Non-scheduled movements as a result of major disruption to air traffic n Non-scheduled movements where significant distress may be caused to humans and animals n Relief flights where there is an urgent need n Military and support aircraft at a time of war n Aircraft of royal families and aircraft carrying heads of state We report any departure or arrival that takes place as a result of these exceptions to the Airport Consultative Committee. However, to date none of these exceptions have applied. NAP25: ban on QC16 and QC8 Aircraft with a quota count of QC 8 or QC 16 must not take off or land between 11pm and 7am. NAP26: ban on scheduling the take-off of aircraft with a quota count of QC4 Aircraft with a quota count of QC 4 cannot be scheduled to take off between 11.30pm and 6am. 38

41 Boeing QC8 on take-off, QC4 when landing. Passengers 458 Airbus A380 QC2 on take-off, QC0.5 when landing. Passengers 489 Boeing QC0.5 on take-off, QC0.25 when landing. Passengers 235 BAe QC0.25 on take-off, QC0.25 when landing. Passengers 84 39

42 Quota counts give us a framework that encourages the increased use of quieter types of aircraft. However, we realise that there is an equally important need to limit the number of night flights in general. o work with the QC points budgets, we have set seasonal and overall limits for the number of night flights allowed up to the end of the 2017 summer season. NAP27: Seasonal limit on night flights summer flights winter 3895 flights 10 Limit 10 Seasonal movements (1000s) summer Seasonal movements (1000s) winter Limit As part of the Second Runway Section 106 agreement, we have to make sure that the number of flights which take place at night, remains proportionate to the number of flights throughout the day. NAP28: Night-flight limit No more than 7% of total flights can be scheduled to take off or land between 11.30pm and 6am. 40

43 Engine testing cannot be carried out outside the engine-test bay between 10pm and 6am on weekdays and between 10pm and 7.30am on Saturdays and Sundays. At night-time, when people are most sensitive to aircraft noise, we understand that aircraft that seem to be used outside the normal pattern can be a cause of concern. o help to reduce that, we have a ban on non-standard departures between 11pm and 7am, and do not allow visual approaches to the airfield between 11pm and 6am. All aircraft arriving between 10pm and 6am are expected to use continuous descent procedures. NAP29: Night-time non-standard departures Non-standard departures are not normally allowed during the night. NAP30: Visual approaches Visual approaches are not allowed between 11pm and 6am. NAP31: Night-time continuous descent approach Between 10pm and 6am, all landing aircraft should follow continuous descent procedures. Aircraft maintenance is an important part of the work that goes on at the airport. After maintenance work has been carried out, engines are often tested before the aircraft is used. o limit the effect the engine testing has on local residents, we have built a specially-designed engine-test bay. In 2012, a total off 411 engine tests took place. One of these was at night. Engine testing on the open airfield only takes place as an exception, when the direction of the wind prevents the use of the engine-test bay. esting outside the bay is not allowed at night, and testing within the bay is strictly controlled during the night-time. NAP32: Engine testing at night Engine testing is not allowed outside the engine test bay between 10pm and 6am on weekdays, and between 10pm and 7.30am on Saturdays and Sundays. he number of engine tests carried out at night will be limited to 20 in any year. Engine testing at night (number of tests) Limit

44 12. Mitigation schemes he Aviation Policy Framework comments that "he acceptability of any growth in aviation depends to a large extent on the industry tackling its noise impact". he Government expects the mitigation schemes adopted by UK airports to continue to be strengthened by including a number of extra measures. Accordingly, for properties within the 69 LAeq16-hour (daytime) noise contour, we offer a property relocation assistance scheme that pays a significant proportion of the cost of moving house. It is designed to help residents in the noisiest areas to move to a quieter area. Introduced in 2005, the scheme is available to approximately 200 properties, mainly in the Heald Green and Wythenshawe areas. NAP33: home relocation assistance scheme We will continue to help homeowners in the noisiest areas to move to a quieter area. In line with government recommendations, we will continue to review properties suffering from high levels of noise (69 db LAeq), and if there has been a large increase in noise (3 db LAeq), consider offering to buy these properties. NAP34: property purchase We will continue to consider offering to buy properties suffering from the highest noise levels and a large increase in noise. We have offered a sound insulation grant scheme since We continue to offer those living close to the airport a contribution towards the cost of insulating their home against aircraft noise. In 2012 we reviewed our sound insulation grant scheme to make sure that it continued to meet government requirements. In April 2012 we published a new scheme. he new scheme is based on the existing scheme s inner zone, but extended where necessary to reflect the area of the LAeq 16 hrs noise contour. he entitlements of the scheme have stayed the same. Some other buildings affected by noise (noise-sensitive buildings), such as schools and hospitals, may be able to get grants towards sound insulation. Several grants have already been made, including those to St Ann s Hospice, Knutsford Methodist Church (community rooms), Knutsford Sure Start Centre, and Prospect Vale School. NAP35: sound insulation grant scheme We will continue to run a scheme that helps people with the cost of insulating their homes against the effects of aircraft noise. We will review the scheme every 5 years, to make sure that it is still appropriate and relevant. he next review will take place in NAP36: noise-sensitive buildings We will consider offering sound insulation to noise-sensitive buildings within the 63 LAeq noise contour.

45 If you would like more information or would like to discuss any of the schemes in more detail, phone the Community Relations eam on , or visit our website at manchesterairport.co.uk When an aircraft travels through the air it causes air turbulence behind it. his turbulence can lead to circulating currents of air known as vortexes. Most vortexes are broken up before they reach the ground, but sometimes particularly in the final stages of landing they can reach roof level, causing tiles to lift or slip. We have identified areas where roofs are most likely to be damaged as a result of vortexes. When it is confirmed that vortexes have damaged a roof, we will immediately repair the roof and give it a vortex-resistant roof covering. In some areas properties may be eligible for re-roofing. NAP37: vortex-damage repair scheme We will continue to provide a vortex-damage repair scheme to repair roofs that have been damaged by vortexes caused by aircraft. We will continue to donate all the money we raise as a result of our environmental penalties to the Manchester Airport Community rust Fund. he fund is a registered charity. It awards grants to local groups to support community, social or environmental projects. he trust concentrates on the areas most affected by aircraft. Each year we donate 100,000 to the fund. he donations we have made so far amount to about 2.8 million. NAP38: Community rust Fund We will continue to donate all the money we raise as a result of our environmental penalties to the Manchester Airport Community rust Fund. 43

46 13. Monitoring and reporting on our progress At Manchester Airport we have been monitoring and reporting noise levels in the surrounding area for over 40 years. 44 We will continue to develop our ability to monitor and report on aircraft noise and we are committed to improving the ways in which we share that information with others.

47 Noise monitor locations Over that time our monitoring systems and the ways in which we use them have developed tremendously. As we review and develop our noise control policies, we also need to monitor and report on how effective our procedures are. A system of ours called MANIS monitors and reports on noise from aircraft, and checks and records the path of every aircraft within 30 kilometres of the airport, up to a height of 12,000 feet. It will, for instance, automatically tell us when aircraft have gone above noise limits, strayed from our preferred noise routes or not followed a continuous descent approach. he results of our monitoring are independently checked and then reported to the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee (MACC). his helps the committee to monitor the effectiveness of our policies. Members of the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group also have access to noise information for monitoring purposes. NAP39: guaranteed access We will give the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group access to our monitoring systems. We have found that effectively sharing information on our performance is vital to the success of many of our initiatives to manage noise. o help us share information we have developed a web-based resource where we make performance information available to airlines and pilots. We will continue to develop our ability to monitor and report on aircraft noise and we are committed to improving the ways in which we share that information with others. NAP40: develop our monitoring system We will make sure that our monitoring systems are suitable, relevant and effective. We will upgrade MANIS, our monitoring system, to allow us to be more effective in sharing noise-related information by MANIS also plays an important role in helping to guide our discussions with the local community. MANIS currently supports a network of 14 noise monitors. However, those noise monitors are mainly in the areas immediately around the airport. his means that we have not had enough information to give us a clear picture of the noise people living further away from the airport are exposed to, and it less effectively reflects their concerns. For this reason we will review the number and location of our monitors. NAP41: locations of noise monitors Along with the Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group, we will review and, where necessary, expand our network of noise monitors. hree new monitoring stations will be in place by

48 Our main performance indicators, which we will continue to report on each year throughout the period covered by this action plan will be: n he area and population within the 57 LAeq and 60 LAeq daytime noise contours (average summer day) n he area and population contained within the 48 LAeq and 60 LAeq night-time noise contours (average summer day) n he number of the noisier marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft that have been used during the year. Each year we will report on the area and population contained within our daytime 57 LAeq and 60 LAeq noise contours and our night-time 48 LAeq and 60 LAeq noise contours. NAP42: daytime noise contour Each year we will report on the area and population contained within our daytime 60 LAeq aircraft noise contour. he area of the daytime 60 LAeq noise contour will remain smaller than that in he area of the contour will also be compared against an average of the previous five years results. Daytime noise contour area (km 2 ) Limit Many of our noise-control measures are judged against limits which are fixed by either the planning conditions set for the second runway or in the S106 Agreement of the own and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared against performance in We propose that in future, we will compare performance against a rolling average of the previous five years results. So, as improvements are made, the resulting target for the following year will become more challenging. Using a five-year rolling average allows any unusual results in a particular year to be evened out. We will produce an annual performance report and publish it on our website. NAP43: night-time noise contour Each year we will report on the area and population contained within our night-time 60 LAeq contour. he area of the night-time 60 LAeq noise contour will remain smaller than that in he area of the contour will also be compared against an average of the previous five years results. Night-time noise contour area (km 2 ) Limit KEY: arget

49 It is increasingly accepted that using LAeq or Lden noise contours are not easily understood by non-experts. o help people understand the noise climate around our airport, from 2014 we will start to publish Number Above contour maps showing the number of times aircraft noise was louder than a given level. We will also publish our first flight-path maps. hese will show the number of flights into and out of the airport and where they flew. hey allow people to see which areas are flown over and how frequently this could be expected to happen. NAP44: extra metrics By 2014 we will start to publish extra noise indicators including number above contours and flight-path maps. We will continue to publish details of the location, number and nature of the noise-related complaints that we receive and we ll report them through the Airport Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group. We will use this information to help us develop our policies on managing noise and communicating with local people. Each month we will report levels of noise on take-off and the number of flights straying from our preferred noise routes through the Consultative Committee. We will work with the Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group to make sure those reports remain appropriate and relevant. NAP45: noise complaints We will continue to regularly report on the complaints we receive and how effectively we respond to them. NAP46: average noise levels Each month we will report the average noise levels on take-off, giving figures for 24 hours, daytime only and night-time only. NAP47: performance in following preferred noise routes We will continue to routinely report on the level of takeoffs keeping to our preferred noise routes. 47

50 14. Effective communication We try to be a good neighbour and we recognise our responsibilities to the local community. We are committed to staying in touch with our community through outreach centres that visit the towns and villages around us. By giving people the chance to meet us we can greatly improve our understanding of any issues that they may have and gather accurate information. NAP48: Community Relations eam We will keep in touch with local people so that we can act on their comments and continue to respond to community concerns. We talk to our neighbours to share information and help us develop our polices. We regularly meet councilors from city, borough, town and parish councils. he councillors can pass on the concerns of residents and recommend ways for us to help the people they represent. NAP50: community representatives We will report details of our progress against the targets we have set ourselves. We will do this through regular meetings with local community representatives. NAP49: outreach centres We will continue to run our community outreach centres in communities around the airport. Alongside the regular outreach centre held at Knutsford library, we aim to provide at least 10 other outreach events each year. Every January we will publish our programme of outreach events for the coming year on our website. In 2011 we responded to all complaints about aircraft noise within the timescale we set ourselves. 48

51 We believe that we can respond to many of the noise complaints that we receive by giving people a better insight into the way we work what we do and why we do it. We are particularly proud of our record in making information about how we operate available to our local community and customers. We have added to our online video resources with a new clip showing how we investigate complaints. We became the first UK airport to launch an ibook; called "A Flying Visit to Manchester Airport". he ibook describes the Airports' history and operations with a combination of film and text. here are some great 360 images from "behind the scenes" and other wizardry that helps explain our operations and how the airport is run. We plan to improve the ibook with more content for he Community area on our website provides useful background information on many of the more common issues. It also lets people make a complaint online. NAP51: complaints and enquiries We will continue to offer a range of ways for people to make enquiries or complaints about aircraft noise. Contact details for our Community Relations eam are as follows. Community Relations Department Olympic House Manchester Airport M90 1QX Freephone: community.relations@manairport.co.uk Website: manchesterairport.co.uk/communitylinks In 2011 we responded to all complaints about aircraft noise within the timescale we set ourselves. NAP52: responding to complaints We respond to 95% of noise complaints within five working days. Complaints about aircraft noise provide valuable information that helps us to work with airlines, air traffic control and pilots to keep disturbance to a minimum and encourage the highest standards of work. Each month we give our Airport Consultative Committee and Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group reports on the types of noise complaints we have received and where from. NAP53: Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group We will continue to routinely work with local authorities, through the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group, to develop and report on policies. 49

52 15. Noise complaints Knowing people s concerns about the airport is important to us. By studying the complaints we receive, and gathering information from our surrounding communities, we believe that we have a good understanding of the noise issues that affect our neighbours. During the Second Runway Public Inquiry in 1994/1995, and after the runway opened in 2001, there was a sharp rise in the number of complaints we received. By 2003 the number of complaints we received had returned to the level we had seen before the Second Runway Public Inquiry. During 2012 our Community Relations eam handled fewer than 1000 complaints. In 2011 (the year that the information used to produce the noise maps was collected) a total of 838 complaints were made by 329 people. he number of complaints received from each person ranged from 1 to 98. Complaints can easily be influences by a small number of people. In 2013 one person made 727 complaints in just 45 days. here had been no change to our operations to account for these complaints and the complainant had lived beneath our flight path for many years. For this reason, we have a procedure for handling persistent complainants. he procedure has been approved by our Consultative Committee and is available online at msanchesterairport.co.uk. In 2006 most of our complainants lived to the west of the airport in Knutsford, Mobberley and Mere (which lie within the 55Lden contour). By 2011, although 34% of compaints still came from Knutsford, Mobberley and Mere, only 26% of complainants lived in these areas. 18% of compaints came from people living to the east of the airport (Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Stockport), but 21% of the complainants lived in these areas. Knutsford is mainly affected by landing aircraft when the runway is being used in an eastern direction (that is, when the aircraft approaches from the west). Departing aircraft follow the preferred noise routes, which are designed to avoid flying over Knutsford. However, depending on the route taken, departing aircraft may fly over Mere or Mobberley. otal number of complaints otal number of complaints (1000s)

53 In total we have seven noise monitors covering departures and landings to and from the west. hese allow us to provide relevant information on noise to the residents of Knutsford, Mobberley and Mere. he residents of Knutsford and Mobberley may be able to claim a sound insulation grant. 7% of complainants live in Bowdon, Hale and Hale Barns. hese areas are mainly affected by departing aircraft leaving the preferred noise route when they reach the height at which they are allowed to do so (the release height). We believe that increasing the release height on this preferred noise route to 5000 feet, so departing aircraft would be at least 1000 feet higher than they currently are before they fly over any built-up area, could benefit the residents living in this area. We have received some support for this proposal, so during the Northern erminal Control Area review we will explore the potential of making this change. We are also conscious that our network of noise monitors does not serve Bowdon and we welcome suggestions on where we could place a noise monitor. he residents of Heald Green, Cheadle, Gatley and Cheadle Hulme are affected by aircraft taking off in an easterly direction and aircraft approaching to land from the east. hose residents accounted for 17% of complainants in Noise monitors give good coverage to provide relevant noise information for Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Gatley. We will place a new monitor in Heald Green. Because we prefer aircraft to land from the east, most of the noise affecting these communities is from aircraft on the final stage of landing. Residents in these communities may be able to claim a sound insulation grant. Aircraft taking off in an easterly direction following the southerly preferred noise route flying over Bramhall and parts of Wilmslow. In 2011, 2% of complainants lived in Bramhall. hey accounted for 2% of the complaints we received. Likewise, parts of Wilmslow (for example, Handforth) are affected by departing aircraft following the preferred noise route and 7% of complainants lived in the Wilmslow area. 4% of complainants live in Wythenshawe. We are looking to put a new monitor in place in the Wythenshawe area and would like suggestions for where one could be placed, particularly in Woodhouse Park. Residents from parts of Woodhouse Park may be able to claim a sound insulation grant. We received other complaints from as far away as Oldham to the north, the Wirral to the west, Buxton to the east and Sandbach to the south. 51

54 16. Consultation responses he Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group have reviewed all of the responses we received. hey have also agreed the actions we have taken to change the commitments in our noise action plan in light of the responses we received

55 First round consultation We received responses from 71 people and organisations (see appendix 6). A total of 53 people and organisations responded using the questionnaire. his allowed us to evaluate the responses to three specific questions. We asked people to tell us their views on whether they think the measure that we currently take to manage noise are appropriate and to tell us whether they think that: n we should be taking further action to control the effect of noise in areas with high levels of noise (69 decibels or more); n we should be taking further action to control noise from aircraft taking off or landing at the airport; and n the noise action plan provides a suitable framework for managing aircraft noise. An analysis of the responses to these questions is given in appendix 7. he responses to the specific questions varied depending on whether the person had already been in contact with our Community Relations team, was contacting us for the first time, or was responding on behalf of an organisation. We did not receive any responses from people living in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more). Overall, nearly half of those who responded to the consultation thought that the noise action plan was a suitable framework for managing aircraft noise. he response to this question varied depending on whether a person had already been in contact with our Community Relations eam (only 25% of this group thought that the action plan was a suitable framework) or whether they were contacting the airport for the first time (nearly 55% of this group thought that the action plan was as suitable framework). Of the organisations that responded, 60% thought that the action plan was a suitable framework to manage aircraft noise. About 70% of the responses came from people or organisations outside the 50 Lnight or 55 Lden contours. And 44% of responses came from communities or organisations in communities to the east of the airport. hose who responded thought that we should be taking further action to control noise from aircraft taking off and landing at the airport. Sheets 1 to 8 show the comments and suggestions we received and where they were sent from. he Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group have reviewed all of the responses we received. hey have also agreed the actions we have taken to change the commitments in our noise action plan in light of the responses we received. Second round review As recommended by the Government, we presented our revised Noise Action Plan to our Airport Consultative Committee. We also discussed our proposed changes with the Environmental Health Offices' Consultative Group. Sheet 9 sets out the comments and suggestions we received, our responses and the actions we will take. 53

56 Sheet No. 1 Departing aircraft Responses Our response and the actions we will take We have already committed to reviewing the release heights (heights at which aircraft can leave our PNRs) to see if changes could bring significant benefits to local communities. But we have also received comments suggesting that our review should also consider: n the width of the PNRs; n other restrictions that are currently placed on the use of PNRs; and n the benefits of using improved navigational performance (PRNAV). In light of these comments, we will widen our review to consider all of these factors to see if changes could bring significant noise benefits to local communities. Currently, 98% of aircraft taking off from Manchester follow the preferred noise routes. However, a number of people consider that departing aircraft fly off track for no good reason. We have changed the noise action plan to show what would be classified as flying off track. Also, as part of the upgrade of the noise monitoring system we will introduce a tool to allow flight paths to be looked at over the internet. 54 A number of people have also suggested that our daytime noise limit should be set at the same level as our night-time limit. Our daytime limit will be 90dB(A) from summer 2010, which will make sure that we keep one of the strictest noise limits of any airport in the country. We also received suggestions that the surcharge for going over the noise limits or flying off track should be increased. o put the surcharges into perspective, an Airbus A320 going over the noise limit by two decibels would result in a charge of 1050, which is equal to a 270% surcharge on the landing fee. A number of people have suggested that only the quietest aircraft should be allowed. We already have a system of runway charges, which offer airlines incentives to use the quietest types of aircraft and a commitment that the number of flights by marginally complaint chapter 3 aircraft remains no greater than the number of 2007.

57 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon two comments Increase the release height to 5000 feet on DES1R/Y preferred noise route to prevent aircraft flying over Bowdon. Increase the release height further for noiser aircraft. Increase the release height from 4000 feet to 5000 feet on DES1R/Y preferred noise route. Publish a list of airlines that do not comply with track keeping targets. Bramhall one comment he use of not just quieter aircraft but the quietest aircraft should be actively encouraged and the most stringent penalties should be implemented to drive this change with improving ratchets downwards as improving technology permits. Bredbury one comment he surcharges identified in the plan are exceedingly small sums when compared with the operating costs of aircraft. Surcharges should be set at a level sufficient to deter further infractions and the money used to reduce the national debt. For noisy or repeatedly errant aircraft this could include additional suspended levies on future flights by a given aircraft or operator. Routing of all flights over less populated areas east and west of the airport should be considered. Chadderton no comments Cheadle two comments Aircraft flying off track and too low; higher fines for off track aircraft. Why not alter the flight paths now and again so that aircraft noise can be shared? Cheadle Heath one comment Landing fees to include a noise element. Cheadle Hulme eight comments Encouraged that you are looking to review your noise related runway charge to introduce an enhanced version in Consider making your penalties for operators who fail to keep within some of your requirements e.g. preferred noise routes, slightly higher to encourage complete compliance. Excessive noise on take-off over Cheadle Hulme. Noise levels are severe at times and planes taking off towards the west do not always fly directly out of the airport in the direction of Stockport, many planes turn south and a very large number appear to fly at low level (sometimes very low indeed) directly over my house. he problem has been aggravated since the construction of the new runway, both because of the increase in traffic and planes are now closer to my property. If planes were to fly directly out to the west the residents in this area would see a considerable improvement. he daytime noise limit should be reduced to 83 decibels. Reduce daytime noise particularly take off. Maintain the southward flight path so that aircraft are not allowed to turn as quickly as they sometimes do. his is especially noisy when heavily laden freight aircraft are departing. Do not allow aircraft to deviate on departure. Departing aircraft appear to make more noise affecting Cheadle Hulme when there are north winds. he aircraft turning at a low height creates the majority of the noise; arriving aircraft do not create the noise in this area he proposed noise action plan fails to give sufficient consideration to disturbance experienced by people living under LIS1S preferred noise route. Re-establishing the HON4S preferred noise route configuration is both technically feasible and would deliver the environmental benefits required to make a compelling case. Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley no comments Goostrey one comment Greater penalties imposed on planes arbitrarily flying off track. Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green five comments he width of the preferred noise routes should be reduced. Define what is meant by persistent in terms of off track surcharges. Frequency of flight paths over Heald Green to be evened out with Knutsford, Mere and Altrincham. Stop planes not just warning them about leaving the flight path. Increase fines to aircraft that leave the flight path even for first time offenders. No flight path appears to be followed. Aircraft come and go, as they appear to choose. he minimum height and distance from the airport should be increased before turning is allowed. High Legh one comment Increasing the release height of the DES1R/Y to 5000 feet would help to prevent the over flying of High Legh s centre. Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde one comment Require all aircraft to follow the correct path at the correct height. Knutsford two comments Narrow the flight path corridor to avoid the whole of the built up area of Knutsford. Only quieter types of aircraft to be allowed at Manchester. Major penalties for off track aircraft. You could impose significant fees on the less quiet aircraft through landing/taking off fees. Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester no comments Marple no comments Mere two comments Westerly departure noise should be spread more evenly across area affected. Even distribution using the Listo and Honiley routes would balance the noise more evenly. Listo should be opened up for larger aircraft from the quieter end of Chapter 3. Chapter 3 aircraft which are noisy should be banned. We do not agree with increasing the release altitude to 5000 feet on the routes mentioned. Current levels give some flexibility to spread noise across areas affected. Reduce your threshold for fines and encourage pilots to throttle back when safely airborne and safety allows. Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley two comments Nether Alderley Parish Council supports the drive to ensure that aircraft keep to preferred noise routes. Make it complusory to adhere to the preferred noise routes. Higher release heights on preferred noise routes might take noise away from neighbouring areas. o hasten the operation and introduction of much quieter aircraft and ban the noisier ones as soon as possible. Northwich one comment Reduction in the number of so-called preferred noise routes. Significant reduction in the number of aircraft movements. Oldham one comment Support for the review of the preferred noise routes. Peover no comments Plumley no comments Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport two comments In 2007 only 2% of aircraft flew off track, yet the target is for 95% of aircraft to keep within the preferred noise route. It appears that the target therefore could be more stringent and this could be reviewed. A greater use of the three different departure patterns to share the burden. Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe one comment Level of noise over Wythenshawe and Heald Green is still too high. Change of route or use of low noise aircraft made compulsory. here are persistent off track offenders who need to be punished more heavily. Other four comments Noise charges should be cost related and adhere to ICAO policies; only cover the cost of noise alleviation or prevention measure; not prevent efficient use of existing aircraft capacity; only be levied at airport experiencing significant noise problems; be accompanied by land use planning measures to restrict residential and other noise sensitive developments around airports. Concerned about flight paths over the Peak District and urge you to restrict flights over the Peak District when planning preferred noise routes for the future. Consider the use of P-RNAV procedures for departures. Include more details in the action plan on the 2010 review of the design of the preferred noise routes and their associated release heights. Clarify what is meant by persistent in terms of off track surcharges. 55

58 Sheet No. 2 Arriving aircraft Responses Our response and the actions we will take A number of people have suggested investigating opportunities for reducing noise by stating the best point for an aircraft s landing flaps to be used and the undercarriage to be lowered. We will work with airlines to investigate this and identify possible noise benefits. Having steeper approaches has also been suggested as a way of reducing noise. Sustainable Aviation is currently looking into this. If the results of the investigation show that noise benefits can be gained, we will work through our Collaborative Environmental Management Group to identify the suitability and benefits of steeper approaches at Manchester. We will also investigate the effect using improved navigational performance (P-RNAV) will have on noise from aircraft landing at Manchester. We will introduce the procedure if the benefits can be shown. 56

59 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall no comments Bredbury no comments Chadderton no comments Cheadle no comments Cheadle Heath no comments Cheadle Hulme one comment Unacceptable noise from aircraft arriving over Cheadle Hulme. Congleton no comments Denton one comment Could wheels be lowered later? Some aircraft are lower than others on approach. Edgeley two comments Adjust the landing path from the east so that all flights go north of Edgeley and they are flying over non residential land. Could arriving aircraft follow the motorway to reduce the noise for residents? Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green no comments High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde one comment Consider speed restrictions on approach for noisy aircraft. Consider adjusting the flight path to take it over Haughton Vale. Explore the possibility of a steeper CDA glide path. Surely in these days of high technology 3 degrees is now outdated. Knutsford no comments Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester no comments Marple no comments Mere no comments Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich no comments Oldham no comments Peover no comments Plumley no comments Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport two comments Penalties for CDA non compliance. he stepped flight path needs to be enforced to ensure that aircraft are higher when over Stockport own centre. Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other three comments he noise action plan should provide a clearer explanation of CDA. Nowhere is it mentioned that CDA is typically achieved using a glide path of 3 degrees, nor does the action plan state what glide path Manchester International Airport considers as having achieved CDA. Consider the use of steeper approaches (for suitable aircraft types). Consider the use of P-RNAV procedures for arrivals. Investigate the variability of the point at which aircraft deploy undercarriage and landing flaps with a view to the standardisation and optimising noise benefits. 57

60 Sheet No. 3 Runway use Responses Our response and the actions we will take By specifying our preferred runway direction as westerly (that is, aircraft approaching to land from the east and taking off to the west) we can further reduce the number of departing aircraft flying over more densely-populated areas to the north and east of the airport. his procedure is supported by the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee. wo of those responding to the consultation (both to the east of the airport) have suggested increasing the number of aircraft taking off towards the east and landing from the west. his would significantly increase the noise suffered by densely-populated areas both to the east and west of the airport. For aircraft flying below 7000 feet, our priority is to keep the disturbance caused by noise to a minimum. his means working to keep the population we fly over to a minimum. It also means using the smallest number of routes, avoiding town centres where possible and concentrating flights along flight paths rather than spreading them out. And where possible, we should avoid aircraft flying over areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. 58

61 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall no comments Bredbury no comments Chadderton no comments Cheadle no comments Cheadle Heath no comments Cheadle Hulme no comments Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley one comment Increase the number of aircraft taking off from the west towards Edgeley. Increase the climb gradient of aircraft departing to the east. Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green two comments Preferred runway direction definition include the 5 knot tailwind component. Sharing arrival and departure volume with southwest areas that are more rural and have more flight path options. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde no comments Knutsford no comments Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester no comments Marple no comments Mere no comments Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich no comments Oldham no comments Peover no comments Plumley one comment Greater use of Runway 1 (70%). Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport one comment he flight paths need to be changed to avoid Stockport own centre. Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other three comments We urge Manchester Airport to pursue the recommendation of the ransport select Committee that the noise levels and number of flights permitted over National Parks and other sensitive areas should be restricted. Support the continued use of the system of preferred westerly runway usage and incorporate an agreed tailwind component. 59

62 Sheet No. 4 Night noise Responses Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded thought that we should be introducing more measures to control the effect of noise at night. Comments received ranged from suggesting that the airport should close at night through to extending the period during which night-time restrictions apply. We last reviewed our night-noise policy in 2007, and it is currently one of the strictest of any airport in the country. We will review the policy again during he review will consider the following. n n n he night period. his currently runs from 11pm to 7am and we have received a number of comments suggesting that this should start earlier in the evening. Operating restrictions. We currently restrict the use of QC8 and QC16 aircraft at night and do not allow QC4 aircraft to be scheduled to depart during the night period. Night movement limits and noise budget. We have summer and winter limits and noise budgets at night. hese are set within the S106 agreement and include exclusions for flights such as movements during emergency situations. n Night noise surcharge. his is currently 83dB(A) the strictest of any airport in the UK. 60

63 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall two comments Reduce noise on all night-time flights. Stop the very noisy engined aircraft from taking off at night. he seasonal unused QC quota causes concern. Bredbury one comment Seasonal QC point budgets are underutilised because they are set too high. Fail to see why there are exclusions identified to the QC budget. Chadderton no comments Cheadle three comments Cut down night flights. Ban noisier aircraft from operating at night. oo many night flights; reduce the number of flights between 5pm and 7am. Limit flight times around summer evenings. Cheadle Heath one comment If a noisy aircraft wishes to operate at night then a premium should be paid. Cheadle Hulme four comments Consider extending your night-time rules so that they begin slightly earlier. Noise reductions start too late (approximately midnight) and finish too early (approximately 6am). Extend the night-time restrictions to commence at 10pm until 8.30am. Extend night-time restrictions. Run the airport in a similar way to London Heathrow where there is no departing or arriving aircraft allowed between the hours of 8pm and 6am. his may be the way forward to eliminating night-time noise for residents. Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley no comments Goostrey one comment Reduction in the number of night flights. Lower noise levels to be insisted upon from night flights. Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green one comment here does not appear to be provision to restrict the night-time usage when runway 2 is in use particularly with regard to aircraft types. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde no comments Knutsford one comment Night over flights are more noticeable and cause more inconvenience. Keep night flights to a minimum over communities. Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester one comment It would be beneficial to consider an investigation into the potential disturbance/ sleep disruption from certain aircraft that are relevant to night operations e.g. QC4 and/or testing of noise receptor levels in buildings within the first priority noise contour to put these issues into context. he illustrations of aircraft and their accompanying Quota Counts is felt to be very useful. he addition of the numbers of passengers would also be helpful in providing an idea of the size of the aircraft. It would be helpful to rationalise the night period and core night period. A commitment to consider this issue as part of the next review of the night noise policy would be helpful. he commitment to review the QC point budget is supported. he current limit level is so much higher than the operating requirements that it is not acting as an effective limit and therefore needs to be reviewed in light of current operating conditions. Inclusion of an additional graph to shown the number of daytime engine tests would be useful to provide a context for the overall number of engine tests. Marple no comments Mere two comments We would like you to consider night closure. Night closure could save the airport money. Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich one comment Significant reduction in the hours of operation. Oldham no comments Peover no comments Plumley one comment All night flights to stop at midnight. Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport three comments here is a surcharge for daytime and evening but there is no information provided on surcharges for flights operating after 11pm. It is therefore suggested that a surcharge be applied to night-time flights. Consider closing between 11.30pm and 6am. Less night traffic. Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other two comments We are happy to see that the Quota Count night matches up with the recognised 8-hour Environmental Noise Directive night running from 11pm to 7am, and this is welcomed, as this is contrary to most of the other Quota Count schemes in operation at British airports. Suggest a reduction in the number of permitted night-time QC points, movements and engine tests. 61

64 Sheet No. 5 Mitigation schemes Responses Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded to the consultation felt that we could improve the schemes we currently have in place to reduce the effects of aircraft noise. Our sound insulation grant scheme has been in place since Although we believe it is the most generous in place at any UK airport, we review the scheme every two years to make sure it remains relevant and continues to offer the best technical solutions available. A number of people told us that they thought that the area the sound insulation grant scheme covered should be extended to include communities which fall outside the current boundary. Others thought that the products the scheme offers do not always represent the best or most practical options available. Overall it was clear that there was a general lack of awareness of the scheme. During 2010, we will carry out a detailed review of the sound insulation grant scheme, with a view to introducing a revised scheme in April 2011 when our current obligations under the S106 agreement end. We will carry out the review with the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group. As well as considering the technical content of the scheme, the review will also consider the boundary of the scheme. 62

65 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall one comment Implement meaningful schemes present are inadequate. Bredbury one comment Mitigation measures such as double glazing are only effective during the winter months when windows are closed. Under the circumstances where previous failure in the local planning system has allowed the over expansion, a property relocation scheme in the Heald Green and Wythenshawe areas seems reasonable, but this should not become either an excuse or a mechanism for not dealing with noise levels that are too high. Chadderton no comments Cheadle one comment Fines should be used to help people affected by aircraft for noise insulation. Cheadle Heath one comment Suggest that the sound insulation grant scheme be reviewed and extended to include those properties where aircraft noise intrusion can be an issue when normal airport operations are modified e.g. ILS events. Cheadle Hulme five comments Congratulate you on your work with the local community to control the impact of noise in their homes through the Sound insulation grant scheme and home relocation assistance scheme. Encourage you to offer acoustic insulation to other noise senitive buildings such as schools and hospitals. Request a revision of the sound insulation grant area. Mitigation schemes need changing as inadequate. Consider a community scheme to match fund projects that improve the community. his area was not included in the funding for double glazing, compensation, or redress is needed if the frequency of departures is to continue to increase. Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley one comment Update the sound insulation grant scheme. Secondary glazing is an out of date solution. Sound insulation grant scheme should be open to tenants to apply for grants. Create incentives for landlords to update their houses. Upgrade existing secondary glazing fitted as part of sound insulation grant scheme for free. Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green two comments he wording of the vortex-damage repair scheme should include the re-roofing scheme. Extend the area of compensation. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde no comments Knutsford no comments Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester two comments Would it be possible to grant some of the fines to small businesses in the area to improve their noise insulation? here is no mention of the impact of noise on businesses - existing and future development plans. Like residents businesses would not establish themselves in an area blighted by noise. What about noise sensitive businesses e.g. tourism, hotels, leisure? Is there any monitoring or mitigation for these impacts? he inclusion of best practice or good practice within the commitment to the sound insulation grant scheme would strengthen the commitment. Marple no comments Mere no comments Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich no comments Oldham no comments Peover no comments Plumley one comment Settle outstanding claims due to high noise levels from new runway. Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport no comments Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe two comments Include Peel Hall and Cross Acres areas of Sharston within the Sound insulation grant scheme boundary. Consider opportunities for joint working with Willow Park Housing trust to undertake insulation and other mitigation works. Consider carbon reduction works e.g. boilers renewals to complement insulation upgrades. Other two comments Community buildings, such as libraries and places of worship, should be considered for inclusion within the noise-sensitive building category. Insulation packages should be made available to homes that have not received insulation grants within the last 20 years. Should also consider on case-by-case basis whether the use of standard acoustic secondary glazing packages will be sufficient and should consider providing help in insulating walls and ceilings where this is necessary e.g. temporary classrooms (which may remain for years). Provisions should be made to include ventilation (air conditioning or other) to go in alongside the insulation to take account of the affect of insulation on the room temperature. With regard to environmental noise from aircraft operations at schools the action plan provides an opportunity to commit to introducing programs addressing the outdoor curriculum, an issue that is recognised in the 2003 Air ransport White Paper but so far has not been acted upon. Include details of re-roofing scheme as part of vortex-damage repair scheme. 63

66 Sheet No. 6 Monitoring and reporting our progress Responses Our response and the actions we will take Many of our noise control measures are judged against limits which are set by the planning conditions for the second runway or the S106 agreement of the own and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared against performance in A common theme to many is that our targets should be more ambitious and challenging. We propose that in future we will also compare performance against an average over the previous five years. So as improvements are made the resulting target for the following year will become more challenging. Using a five-year average allows any unusual result in a particular year to be evened out. We will produce an annual noise action plan performance report and publish it on our website. Our noise monitoring system is made up of monitors which are mainly in areas immediately around the airport. A number of people have suggested that noise monitoring should be carried out in areas much further from the airport. We will work with environmental health officers in areas further away from the airport to identify suitable locations for portable noise monitoring equipment. We will then report the results to the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group. 64

67 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall no comments Bredbury one comment While many features of the Noise Action Plan are commendable, there are aspects of the plan, which represent a licence to carry on business as usual. Noise limits are too high, restrictions too weak and penalties for exceeding them are not severe enough. he environmental objective of ensuring that aircraft noise does not exceed the levels recorded during 2001/2 is particularly weak. he average noise levels for all of the targets should not be referenced to 2001 but be based on the average of the three previous years. Chadderton no comments Cheadle one comment No monitoring equipment in sensitive areas. Cheadle Heath one comment Reduce number of flights and associated noise. Day noise should be closer to present night noise levels. Cheadle Hulme two comments I do have concerns about the number of people, some 31,000 (Lden) living in the area over 60dB, as the World Health Organisation states at this level of noise it is not merely an annoyance but a serious annoyance. You could perhaps be bolder with your targets. Your goal should not be to stand still but to make year on year improvements in reducing aircraft noise impact. he noise level would appear to be much higher than given in the plan. Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley one comment Review the position of the noise monitor in Edgeley. Commission an independant noise study to perform additional noise tests in Freemantle Street, Bloom Street and Kilburn Road, Edgeley. Change the targets in the noise action plan to year on year improvements. Record and review daily flight telemetry for aircraft. Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green two comments he targets should be reduced to provide at least a semblance of a challenge. Averaging in general to produce contours is totally anomalous to showing real impact. You should be measuring peak time impact on all the preferred routes. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde one comment Monitor noise from arriving aircraft at least 10 miles from the airport. Check on aircraft approaching over Denton, Hyde and possibly beyond. Knutsford no comments Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester two comments he airport should continually challenge itself to improve standards and routinely set more ambitious targets. Whilst the draft noise action plan provides a sound footing it does not appear to push the airport or airlines for continual annual improvement. he broad aims could be strengthened by the inclusion of a commitment to the ongoing implementation of the noise action plan throughout its 5 year life cycle. he commitment to benchmarking against other airports is supported. Marple no comments Mere two comments Statistics are hard to understand by the general public. A more user friendly measuring device should be used to help understand levels. Reduce your noise level target from 69dB LAeq contour to 63dB LAeq contour. Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich one comment oo much focus on the areas shown to be affected by high levels of noise. he impact on rural areas with relatively low population density is not given sufficient consideration in the plan. Aircraft noise has a major detrimental impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty including some of the most beautiful and remote areas of the Peak District National Park. Oldham one comment Support for the general long term objective which is to limit and reduce the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport s operations. Empathise with the airport that like other operators has not had the benefit of advice from Government as expected on defining quiet area. Support for the use of MANIS and that this or similar high quality systems should continue to be used in the future. Peover one comment It would be helpful in understanding these charts if a paragraph was included to explain that it is generally accepted that roughly an increase of 10dBA represents a doubling of noise. Include an explanation why the night-time limit cannot be achieved during the day. It is suggested that the benchmarks be lowered to reflect the improvements already achieved and that this be applied to all graphs in the action plan. Include a map of the existing noise monitoring stations in the plan. Quiet areas it is suggested that the note on page 13 should include the criteria for quiet areas whether this is determined centrally or locally. Plumley no comments Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach one comment Some of the Section 106 Agreement related actions cite targets that have been comfortably met in recent years and should be set at more challenging levels. An action to review these targets as part of the discussions to continue the scope of the agreement beyond 2011 could be included. he maps should also be accompanied by a statement of whether the 2006 data used is representative of usual conditions. he maps have not been used to subjectively assess the noise impacts on the public and identify any specific problems. Actions in the plan should specifically relate to these findings and target any identified issues. he action plan does not seem to provide for the evaluation of specific measures. It is believed that this would better enable the assessment of individual action s effectiveness. Benefits could be expressed in terms of the reductions in population numbers affected. Financial information has not been included. he plan should make consideration of quiet areas in general and not only those in agglomerations. Stockport one comment Review targets to include levels and protection of those within the 69 db LAeq contour. he average level of the 10% noisiest departures and the average level of the 100 noisest day time departures will remain lower than his appears to be a restrospective target and it is suggested that this is updated to include a more recent date because in 2007 this was clearly achieved by approximately 4 db(a). More stringent targets, all targets are retrospective. Marginally compliant chapter 3 movements will remain lower than It is suggested that this is reviewed in 2010 to include a more recent target date. Styal one comment Of particular concern, in addition to the general increase in aircraft related noise, have been the impacts upon users of Styal Woods and upon the residents, school children and teachers, and church goers of Styal village. It is not apparent that issues in respect of all of these users have been identified in the draft noise action plan and they need to be addressed in the final document. he overall objective of limiting and reducing the number of people affected by noise as a result of the operation of the airport is supported. It would be sensible for the description of the environs of the airport to acknowledge the close relationship with Quarry Bank Mill and Styal Woods and their importance as a recreational and educational resource for both the local communities and those farther a field. he draft plan is unclear about its approach to Quiet Areas and whether or not it should seek to define such locations. It is clear that the historic industrial workers village at Styal is subject to significant noise levels associated with the airport. One cumulative measure attributable to day movements should be included. Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other one comment Contour maps do not accurately reflect the intrusion of noise on communities or on the countryside. 65

68 Sheet No. 7 Effective communication Responses Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded to the consultation felt that we could improve the ways in which we share information and discuss noise issues with the local community. Our events in the community (outreach events) are seen as valuable in achieving this aim, but people wanted us to visit more locations and to improve publicity before each event. We will hold 10 outreach events every year. We will review the way we advertise the details of our outreach events, and every January we will publish our programme of outreach events for the coming year on our website. We have already committed to publishing new noise indicators that we hope will be more easily understood than noise contours. We will try to identify and promote new or improved ways of making information about airport noise understandable and available to the local community. his will certainly involve extending the distribution of e-news, which is currently sent to 14,000 addresses. wo people have suggested that there should be an independent body to handle complaints. In fact we currently have two independent controls on our complaint handling Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the environmental health officers from the surrounding local authorities. A number of people were not satisfied with the consultation process itself. he process that we followed is set out in section 3 and associated appendices. In future we will make sure that we work closely with local authorities and do everything reasonably possible to advertise any future consultations in newsletters. Producing a plain English version of the draft noise action plan was seen as a good example of how complex technical matters can be communicated effectively. 66

69 Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall one comment Communication is not relevant; report to regular resident groups with positive improvement identified; involve all people by proper dialogue not provided at present; need to reference peoples complaints with actions and agreed remedies; proper distribution of a simpler and regular set of documents and questionnaires are needed to all households. Bredbury one comment Notifications of consultations at Manchester Airport should be sent to all those organisations that have responded to previous consultations and to local organisations such as Stockport Friends of the Earth. Chadderton no comments Cheadle two comments No communication with the people affected by noise. Involve more local people not just councillors, MPs, and public servants. Inform people of how to attend and put forward their views at the consultative committee. More information required about grants available for sound proofing. here has been no communication to us as residents with regard to airport noise by the airport. Cheadle Heath no comments Cheadle Hulme three comments More proper consultation; system to allow proper public feedback with proper response required; inadequate meaningful communication. Your report does not take account of residents feelings; you do not communicate satisfactorily. Plan contains irrelevant data and not user friendly to residents with grievances no allowance/input other than your own. Consultation not publicized correctly. Inadequate feedback copies left at libraries (1 only) and late or inadequate notice of any consultations. he airport should be proactive in reducing noise and increase corporate social responsibility activity to ensure that local people feel that the airport is being proactive in contributing positively to the community as a whole. Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley one comment Increase the number of outreach events. Improve dialogue with the Edgeley community by: Commissioning an independent study to determine the awareness of airport schemes such as the sound insulation grant scheme; making the complaints procedure well known to the Edgeley community; providing regular reports of the noise levels of aircraft flying above Edgeley; be flexible and proactive in on going concerns and don t wait for noise action plans for consultations and alterations to procedures. Manchester Airport has displayed a lack of knowledge in effective communication/ marketing, asking for advice on this matter from the general public when advice should not need to be given. Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green three comments Much more publicity for outreach events. I fill in your online complaints form and get an back that you will speak to the airline but that seems to be it. You should be knocking on the doors of at least one house on every road asking these questions. Most people in Heald Green do not even know how to complain. Proactive response to public concerns especially those affected by flight paths is the way forward. Listening to public concerns and issues shows respect from a very high impact industry on the environment on all levels. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde no comments Knutsford three comments Improve communication. Monthly column in Knutsford Guardian for Community to ask questions. Details of the consultation were not well publicised especially to schools and public buildings. Short reports on why targets cannot be reached might aid relations and stop grumbles. Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester two comments Complaints do not accurately reflect peoples views, they only show who has the time, ability and knowledge to complain. Regular meetings with businesses as well as residents to understand their views and concens. It would be helpful to continue to explore how technical noise information can be interpreted and presented in a way that is understandable to local residents. Marple no comments Mere two comments Plan is difficult to understand not user friendly nor would it pass the Crystal test. his is deliberate to confuse all and sundry. A more user friendly measuring device is needed. Middleton no comments Middlewich no comments Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich one comment It is more likely that the number of complaints is not larger because those affected by noise find it useless to complain. Simply recording the complaint and providing a written response is not effective substantive action. Oldham one comment he Plain English version of the Draft Noise Action Plan I view as particularly helpful Effective communication should always be seen as a priority when dealing with environmental noise impacts as aiding improved community understanding of necessarily complex technical matters has proved to be effective in all partnership working relating to noise control. Peover no comments Plumley no comments Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport two comments Independent body handling complaints. Manchester Airport has very little communication about noise levels with anybody. Styal no comments Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other two comments We the Conservatives have proposed a commercial flights officer, who would act as ombudsman, investigating formal complaints about noise, via MPs, with powers to compel the National Air raffic services, airports, or any other body concerned with the movement of aircraft to co-operate with investigations. At a local level, public attitude surveys would also serve to foster better community engagement. 67

70 Sheet No. 8 New sites for noise monitors Responses Altrincham no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne no comments Bollington no comments Bowdon no comments Bramhall no comments Bredbury no comments Chadderton no comments Cheadle no comments Cheadle Heath no comments Cheadle Hulme no comments Congleton no comments Denton no comments Edgeley no comments Goostrey no comments Hale no comments Hale Barns no comments Hazel Grove no comments Heald Green two comments Suggested location of noise monitor Rose Vale Park. Gleneagles Road as a potential location. High Legh no comments Holmes Chapel no comments Hyde no comments Knutsford no comments Lymm no comments Macclesfield no comments Manchester one comment he installation of an additional noise monitor in Wythenshawe is welcomed. Marple no comments Mere no comments Middleton no comments Middlewich one comment Monitor noise over Middlewich. 68

71 Proposed noise monitor locations Mobberley no comments Nether Alderley no comments Northwich no comments Oldham no comments Peover no comments Plumley no comments Poynton no comments Prestbury no comments Sale no comments Salford no comments Sandbach no comments Stockport no comments Styal one comment Noise monitoring in relation to Styal Village and Styal Woods would be appropriate. Wilmslow no comments Wythenshawe no comments Other one comment Brown Lane Methodist Church or Prospect Vale School possible locations for noise monitor in Heald Green. 69